Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

State v Wapi [2025] PGNC 326; N11461 (16 July 2025)

N11461

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1410 OF 2024

THE STATE

V

PETER WAPI

MINJ: CROWLEY J
15, 16 JULY 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – particular offence- unlawful wounding – s322 Criminal Code Act – prisoner pleaded guilty – offender has no prior criminal record - 1 year 8 months and 18 days sentence imposed – sentence imposed already served while in pre-sentence detention – no suspended sentence

Cases cited
Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890
State v Dominic Ken (2016) N6345
State v Lekis (2007) N5029
State v Lubiale (2014) N5775
State v Pipi (2017) N7204
State v Yakamo (2023) N10262

Counsel
Ms Tanja Kalg, for the State
Mr Fabian Timbi, for the offender

SENTENCE

1. CROWLEY J: This is the decision on sentence for Peter Wapi who pleaded guilty to one count of Unlawful Wounding and has been convicted of that offence under s 322 of the Criminal Code. He on 29 October 2023 in River Al Jiwaka he threw a stone at the side glass of a company vehicle. The stone smashed the glass and hit the victim Zou Huagui a Chinese National, who was sitting in front of the vehicle. The stone landed on the victim’s mouth and damaged four of his front teeth. He was taken to the hospital and was treated.
   

ANTECEDENTS

2. The offender has No Previous Criminal History.

ALLOCUTUS

3. Mr Wapi said he did not intend to cause trouble but that he was provoked. He was employed by the company. He complained that in 7 months they had not given him a safety briefing. I said he was finally given a safety briefing at 7pm at night. This was at a place away from where he usually worked. He asked for a bus fare so that he could return to his home but his employer refused. He asked three times and was refused on each occasion. In frustration he took a bush knife and broke the lid of a generator, not the generator itself but only the lid. The Police came and picked him up. The next day when he returned to work he was saked. His severance pay was only 1 kina. He said he felt really bad. He stood outside his place of work. He picked up the stone and threw it at the car. The stone hit the exhaust mount and ricochetted into the window.

4. Mr Wapi said he was sorry in the eyes of the Lord, he was sorry to the court, he was sorry he broke the constitution of the country, he was sorry to Mr Zhou, he was sorry to the company. What I said was true and I ask for mercy.

OTHER MATTERS OF FACT

5. As the offender has pleaded guilty he will normally be given the benefit of the doubt on mitigating matters raised in the depositions, the allocutus or in submissions that are not contested by the prosecution (Saperus Yalibakut v The State (2006) SC890).

6. He cooperated with police and made early admissions.

PERSONAL PARTICULARS

➢ 24 years old from Domil Village, Banz, North Waghi, Jiwaka Province

SUBMISSIONS BY DEFENCE COUNSEL

7. Mr Timbi urged the court to take into account:

➢ Mr Wapi had taken full responsibility and entered a Guilty plea at the earliest opportunity.
➢ He had no criminal history and was a first time offender
➢ That there was a level of provocation which, though not creating a legal justification provide the court with an explanation of his behaviour.
➢ He showed genuine remorse in his allocutus

8. Mr Timbi conceded the aggravating factors of:

➢ The prevalence of this kind of offence in society; and
➢ the use of a rock (weapon) in the attack.

9. Mr Timbe referred me to the following cases:

State v Yakamo (2023) N10262- 3 charges under s322(1)(a), guilty plea, 2 years 6 months on remand. Sentenced to the rising of the court
State v Pipi (2017) N7204- guilty plea-one charge s322(1)(a)- slashed victim with bush knife- wounds healed- sentence 1 year less pre-trial custody. Balance suspended.
State v Dominic Ken (2016) N6345- guilty plea- same charge-2 year less pre-trial custody, the balance suspended
State v Lubiale (2014) N5775- guilty plea- defendant cut woman on the shoulder- 2 years wholly suspended on condition, one being paying compensation.
A sentence of 3-4 years would be sufficient.
State v Lekis (2007) N5029- guilty plea-slashed his sisters head with a bush knife- sentenced the accused to 30 months deducting pre-trial custody and suspending the balance.

10. Ultimately the Defence submitted that the accused should be sentence to his term of pre-trial custody OR if a longer term then the balance after the pre-trial custody is suspended.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE STATE

11. Ms T Kalg conceded mitigating factors identifying by the defence:

➢ a Guilty plea at the earliest opportunity.
➢ He had no criminal history
➢ That there was a level of provocation which, though not creating a legal justification provide the court with an explanation of his behaviour.
➢ And that the accused had made admissions in the ROI

12. Ms Kalg submitted the aggravating factors of:

➢ The prevalence of this kind of offence in society; and
➢ the use of a rock (weapon) in the attack.

13. Though she conceded there were more mitigating factors than aggravating. She submitted that time served would be an appropriate sentence.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

14. To determine the appropriate penalty, I will adopt the following decision making process:

• step 1: what is the maximum penalty?
• step 2: what is a proper starting point?
• step 3: what sentences have been imposed for equivalent offences?
• step 4: what is the head sentence?
• step 5: should the pre-sentence period in custody be deducted?
• step 6: should all or part of the sentence be suspended?
  

STEP 1: WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM PENALTY?

3 years

STEP 2: WHAT IS A PROPER STARTING POINT?

15. Based on the case submitted above, I will use 1 year to 18 months. I note many of the cases relied on were slashing with a bush knife which I regard as more serious than rock throwing.

STEP 3: WHAT OTHER SENTENCES HAVE BEEN IMPOSED FOR EQUIVALENT OFFENCES?

16. I have noted the cases above and there are no co-accused sentences to consider.

STEP 4: WHAT IS THE HEAD SENTENCE?

17. Mitigating factors are:

• first-time offender;
• Guilty plea at earliest opportunity;
• Young offender.
• A level of provocation (not amounting to a justification or excuse)
• Admissions to police
• Remorse showed during the allocutus
  

18. The aggravating factors are:

➢ The prevalence of this kind of offence in society; and
➢ the use of a rock (weapon) in the attack.

19. There are more mitigating factors than aggravating factors. I fix a head sentence of 1 years 8 months and 18 days imprisonment.

STEP 5: SHOULD THE PRE-SENTENCE PERIOD IN CUSTODY BE DEDUCTED FROM THE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT?

20. Yes, the offender has been in custody for 1 year 8 months and 18 days.

STEP 6: SHOULD ALL OR PART OF THE SENTENCE BE SUSPENDED?

21. No part of the sentence should be suspended as there is no balance of imprisonment to be served once the pre-sentence custody is deducted..

SENTENCE

22. Peter Wapi, having been convicted of one count of unlawfully wounding under s 322(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, is sentenced as follows:

________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the offender: Public Solicitor